Landlord TDS dispute

TrickyNiki

I pursued my landlord for non TDS comliance but settled when he offered the full deposit back.

We had been out of the property a month and upon leaving had a signed note (scrap of paper) with the landlords wifes signature on it saying that the property was in great condition and was cleaner than when I moved in.

Upon claming my deposit back the landlord clammed up and refused to repond to any calls or letters. Upon getting a solicitor I recieved a letter stating He would not be returning the deposit. A legal letter was then sent stating that if the deposit was not returned in full within 7 days we would be taking to court for non TDS compliance and claming the full deposit plus the 3X penalty required by law.

Needless to say he returned the deposit in full the next day.

Planner

tbs624 wrote: »

Anyone following the links can clearly see the dates and follow further links from Tessa's blogs. Remember that what any one of us, including you, post on here, cannot be seen as "advice" - merely suggestions or opinion and, as with any forum, readers should seek their own clarification.

If the OP were to use N208 rather than N1 but does not win - and unfortunately there is no guarantee that s/he would do, as things stand - then s/he would then need to start again with an N1 to try to recover the deposit itself. Potential to be shelling out two lots of court fees..................yes, if s/he was successful with the N1 then that fee would be recoverable, but the N208 fee would not be under that same action AFAIAA.

I think its time we closed this particular debate (again) and moved on;

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/docs/infoabout/housing/section-214-application.doc

Court guidance is clear that N208 Part 8 claim for should be used for TDS non-compliance claim. It has nothing to do with being an opinion or a suggestion, its cold hard FACT.

Premier_2

Planner wrote: »

...If you have a third reason, I would be happy to hear it.

This is a moneysaving site and I hate for some genuine posters who ask for advice to be mis-led by people like you that they are guaranteed to get something for nothing by making a spuious if not vexatious claim, and therefore not only possibly lose what they should be entitled to (e.g. the £600 the OP asserts the LL is trying to withhold without due cause in this thread) but also the time & expense of such fruitless action.
Look at this poor reader who suffered by the poor advice he was given
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1077075

Even if the remainder of your unfounded allegations agaisnt me were true, why would I have a "vested interest" to do this?
How does a poster losing money benefit me?

As for the rest of your outrageous allegations and accusations, have you really looked through all my previous 3872 posts over the past 3+ years? I see you've only been registered with this site less than a month.

I'm sure if you search carefully, you will see a number of occassions I have recommended tenants get their deposit protected.

Premier_2

kj616 wrote: »

I am seeking the return of my deposit in full. I would also like LL to be penalised by the courts in line with the provisions of the housing act. My correspondence with LL up to now has left me in no doubt that there is almost no chance he will agree to return the deposit in full.

Best of luck!

Planner

Premier wrote: »

This is a moneysaving site

Yes, but you do understand dont you, that its a moneysaving site for the tenant that is posting rather than the law breaking landlord your protecting?

Premier_2

Planner wrote: »

Yes, but you do understand dont you, that its a moneysaving site for the tenant that is posting rather than the law breaking landlord your protecting?

This is a moneysaving site for all - I don't discriminate like some. :rolleyes:

I would, as I have done, advise the tenant in this case to claim back any money they feel is rightfully theirs. If the LL is holding it unlawfully; he should return it. However, this is a matter of dispute and both parties should try and resolve it themselves. Court action should always be seen as a matter of last resort.

Unfortunately I think The OP wants the opportunity of their day in court no matter what, which could cost them heavily.

Planner

Premier wrote: »

This is a moneysaving site for all - I don't discriminate like some. :rolleyes:

I would, as I have done, advise the tenant in this case to claim back any money they feel is rightfully theirs. If the LL is holding it unlawfully; he should return it. However, this is a matter of dispute and both parties should try and resolve it themselves. Court action should always be seen as a matter of last resort.

Unfortunately I think The OP wants the opportunity of their day in court no matter what, which could cost them heavily.

I disagree completley. Your posts are completley unbalanced and heavily favour the landlord that is being complained about. I think you need to have a read back at what you have written from an 'independant' prospective. I note that many posters point this out to you, and I for one will continue to do so.

I dont think the O/P is looking for their day in court. They have listened to my, and other posters balanced advice outlining possible ways forward and the possible pitfalls to said actions, and have concluded that they want to make a N208 claim.

Less obviously biased posts from you in the future would, Im sure, be highly welcomed from posters as you are obviously quite knowledgeable on the subject, it is just unfortunate that you have elected to use such knowledge for the 'dark side', with completley one sided views and opinnions.

Shame

Premier_2

Planner wrote: »

...b) you are in fact a landlord who is doing all in their power to discredit the TDS system and negate tenants rights.
...

I'm certainly not. If you had bothered to check, I've often posted the exact legislation rather just my opinion. Perhaps this is an oppostune moment to do so again

213 Requirements relating to tenancy deposits
(1) Any tenancy deposit paid to a person in connection with a shorthold tenancy must, as from the time when it is received, be dealt with in accordance with an authorised scheme.
(2) No person may require the payment of a tenancy deposit in connection with a shorthold tenancy which is not to be subject to the requirement in subsection (1).
(3) Where a landlord receives a tenancy deposit in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the initial requirements of an authorised scheme must be complied with by the landlord in relation to the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which it is received.
(4) For the purposes of this section “the initial requirements” of an authorised scheme are such requirements imposed by the scheme as fall to be complied with by a landlord on receiving such a tenancy deposit.
(5) A landlord who has received such a tenancy deposit must give the tenant and any relevant person such information relating to—
(a) the authorised scheme applying to the deposit,
(b) compliance by the landlord with the initial requirements of the scheme in relation to the deposit, and
(c) the operation of provisions of this Chapter in relation to the deposit,
as may be prescribed.
(6) The information required by subsection (5) must be given to the tenant and any relevant person—
(a) in the prescribed form or in a form substantially to the same effect, and
(b) within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the deposit is received by the landlord.
(7) No person may, in connection with a shorthold tenancy, require a deposit which consists of property other than money.
(8) In subsection (7) “deposit” means a transfer of property intended to be held (by the landlord or otherwise) as security for—
(a) the performance of any obligations of the tenant, or
(b) the discharge of any liability of his,
arising under or in connection with the tenancy.
(9) The provisions of this section apply despite any agreement to the contrary.
(10) In this section—
“prescribed” means prescribed by an order made by the appropriate national authority;
“property” means moveable property;
“relevant person” means any person who, in accordance with arrangements made with the tenant, paid the deposit on behalf of the tenant.

214 Proceedings relating to tenancy deposits
(1) Where a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the tenant or any relevant person (as defined by section 213(10)) may make an application to a county court on the grounds—
(a) that the initial requirements of an authorised scheme (see section 213(4)) have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit; or
(b) that he has been notified by the landlord that a particular authorised scheme applies to the deposit but has been unable to obtain confirmation from the scheme administrator that the deposit is being held in accordance with the scheme.
(2) Subsections (3) and (4) apply if on such an application the court—
(a) is satisfied that those requirements have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit, or
(b) is not satisfied that the deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme,
as the case may be.
(3) The court must, as it thinks fit, either—
(a) order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay it to the applicant, or
(b) order that person to pay the deposit into the designated account held by the scheme administrator under an authorised custodial scheme,
within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.
(4) The court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order.
(5) Where any deposit given in connection with a shorthold tenancy could not be lawfully required as a result of section 213(7), the property in question is recoverable from the person holding it by the person by whom it was given as a deposit.
(6) In subsection (5) “deposit” has the meaning given by section 213(8).

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040034_en_19

or in plain English:

If a tenant is concerned that his deposit is not protected by a scheme and/or he has not been provided with the prescribed information and/or the scheme administrator does not confirm that their deposit is protected then he can commence proceedings against the landlord under HA 2004, s 214. Although it appears that if, by the time of the hearing, the landlord has complied with the requirement there is no sanction. If the court finds that the landlord is in breach then it must order up to three times the amount of the deposit to be paid to the tenant within 14 days (s 214(4)) as well as ordering the deposit to be paid either into the custodial scheme or to the tenant (s 213(3)).

http://www.propertylawuk.net/residentialdeposits.html

So you see, it is very easy for a LL to avoid the 3x penalty, even if they have not protected the deposit.
In the case of this thread, I can't even see why the OP would want the deposit protected - the tenancy is over. The OP claims to want to see the LL punished; but perhaps that's an excuse to actually hide the fact they really just want to get some compo for themselves.
In any event I'm trying to prevent the OP from incurring any unnessary fees in resolving this rather simple dispute.

You on the other hand are encouraging them to fork out £150 on some claim for which they have little chance of winning.

Planner

We are just going over the same arguments, I can remember this one from weeks back.

We are talking about a BALANCED view. You will note from my first post on the thread, that I warned the O/P of the potential for the landlord to protect the deposit all the way up to the court, so your above posts adds nothing new, in fact the apparent 'right' to retrospective protection was raised yesterday.

A balanced view, such as mine, then goes onto explain the various cases where the judge has disagreed with this view and the cases I am personally aware of where tenants have successfully sued in spite of retrospective prtection.

On the other hand, an UNBALANCED view, such as yours just bangs on and on and on and on with the same old same old, point blankly refusing to accept that the landlord could smell anything but of roses. Unhelpful and unproductive.

Shame

kj616

So you see, it is very easy for a LL to avoid the 3x penalty, even if they have not protected the deposit.
In the case of this thread, I can't even see why the OP would want the deposit protected - the tenancy is over. The OP claims to want to see the LL punished; but perhaps that's an excuse to actually hide the fact they really just want to get some compo for themselves.
In any event I'm trying to prevent the OP from incurring any unnessary fees in resolving this rather simple dispute.

You on the other hand are encouraging them to fork out £150 on some claim for which they have little chance of winning. [/quote]


Firstly, whilst I don't want to get into a lengthy debate about my motives, I would stress I do want to see LL penalised. In my opinion the legislator intended that the law prevent this exact situation. I feel the law entitles me to 10k, and make no apologies for this view.

Equally I accept that it seems likely that a judge (rightly or wrongly) may not award me 3x the deposit if LL registers the deposit before the hearing. Howver (and I guess this is what I want clarification on) I cannot envisage a set of circumstances where the judge would rule that I am not entitled to my deposit back. Equally I cannot see how the judge could rule that I have to pay LL's costs (see the example in the thread linked above).

It therefore seems that I have little (if anything) to loose, particularly given the fact that the other option seems to be allowing LL to keep a large chunk of my deposit. If anybody else thinks otherwise I would like to know - any further information to help inform my decision is most welcome.